At that point, Montenegro (who has since legally changed his name to “human”) decided to test the approval system by applying for both a pro-government license plate, “GR8GOVT,” and an anti-government plate, “GOVTSUX.”

GR8GOVT was approved, which to human proved that the DMV had not acted in a “viewpoint neutral” way when it OK’ed a plate praising the government but denied the other expressing criticism of government officials (police officers). Human maintains that this is a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech, but New Hampshire courts have ruled in the DMV’s favor thus far.

Human is appealing the decision to the state Supreme Court, and the court is asking for amicus briefs from the public on whether the DMV violated human’s right to free speech or whether its justification is legally sound. The deadline for submitting briefs is June 24.

Personalized license plates are also known as vanity plates, and although all states permit them, the proposed plate must get past the DMV first. Standards vary greatly across the country.

The battle over vanity plates centers on the question of whether the unique set of letters and/or numbers on a given plate is individual expression or government speech. This question has not yet been definitively decided by our nation’s highest court.

Generally, government officials claim that because they issue the plates, the content is government speech. Therefore, the argument goes, the government can regulate what’s on the plates, as it has the authority to choose its own messages. If the plates are classified as private speech, however, the government does not have the power to use the First Amendment to restrict an individual’s right to print their viewpoint on the plate.

The government can restrict even private speech if it is defamatory or obscene; incites violence, crime, or sedition; causes panic; or is made up of “fighting words,” defined as “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

What do you think of the COPSLIE plate? Is the New Hampshire DMV restricting human’s First Amendment rights or are they correct in denying his request?

First of all, a vanity plate in and of itself is a form of “individual expression”.
Second, for the DMV to approve one plate that promotes the government and deny another one that promotes anti-government is clearly biased and proves that the final decision by a government official is subjective and caters to THEIR personal tastes.

In my view, public expression is already constrained by various public laws, and this matter of government-required vehicle identification is congruous with same, since it is on public display.

Ownership:
A person owns the car, however not the license plate, evidenced by the government issuing said plate, and having legal mandate requiring the vehicle owner to display same, thus illustrating that this is not a matter of the vehicle owner’s freedom of choice to display a license plate or not. This removes license plate issues from a vehicle owner’s personal realm, and affirming the government’s domain.

Furthermore, the government has always been the sole determiner of what information was to be displayed on any license plate. Only in more recent times have governments created the option for a vehicle owner to request personalized content.

Finally, a person cannot legally emblazon, i.e. the hood of the vehicle or a bumper sticker, with graphic images/words of an offensive nature, even though said graphics are on a person’s vehicle, not the license plate.

One may argue what is offensive, however, this matter is not about that as much as it is ownership of the plate with the implied control over same, hence the government is the final arbiter of what content is displayed on any given license plate, because it owns the plate.